|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2007 : 10:28:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Next, most religious people are not delusional – and we've had this conversation before on SFN. |
They are not clinically, lock-them-up "delusional." But as a layman's term, "delusional" precisely describes their state of mind. Until I find a better word, I'll continue to use it.
| Third, you made the statement that progressive thinkers who also believe in God have only the option of implying faith is not an admirable trait. Obviously, for better or for worse, they disagree with you. That is what I was saying. |
So? It's them that I have my quarrel with. I don't expect them to agree with me.
| Peoples' beliefs are highly personal, complex things. Progressive thinkers do not come to faith through rational means, and they don't claim to, and yet you seem to be demanding a rational argument. |
Yes, I am saying that they are acting irrationally.
| They aren't irrational either, because they embrace what science tells us about the natural world, and they support secularism because they are humble instead of self righteous. |
This is where you go wrong, Marf. Faith is 100% irrational. No matter how limited, no matter what their personal motives, faith is always irrational.
| But that's just not enough for some atheists. No, we have to condescend to them further, which frankly makes us look like narrow minded, arrogant, jerks. |
No, it is my refusal to condescend to them that you find arrogant.
| And when atheists condescend to believers or vice versa, applying our own mindsets and semantics and structure of philosophical thinking onto all the subtleties of others' beliefs, we are doing a misapplication. |
As soon as you can actually show me that reason and critical thinking are inapplicable to this issue, then I'll refrain. Otherwise all I see is you asking me not to rock the boat because you don't like upsetting good people. That's a terrible compromise, as I'll explain below.
| And it is perfectly possible for people to do noble acts, inspired by scurrilous positions, thus giving that scurrilous position a useful and beneficial function. Many people of faith do very noble things that they claim are inspired at least partially by their faith. |
And this is exactly why faith should never be promoted, because it can be used to justify anything. If faith can be invoked as a reason to end slavery, so can it be invoked to as a reason to continue slavery. And once you accept faith as a valid reason |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/27/2007 10:50:38 |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 12:24:55 [Permalink]
|
| They are not clinically, lock-them-up "delusional." But as a layman's term, "delusional" precisely describes their state of mind. Until I find a better word, I'll continue to use it. |
I think 'misguided' is a better term, only because delusional is so closely associated with the idea of someone with a mental deficiency who cannot really function as a viable member of society...the "Emperor" who talked to God last week, now thats delusional.
How about "Skeptically challenged" or my favorite, "Mancans" (manchurian candidates, not to be confused with man-boobs) as "Brainwashed" is also taken as an insult.
"Them/They" is always a winner though. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 14:43:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
| They are not clinically, lock-them-up "delusional." But as a layman's term, "delusional" precisely describes their state of mind. Until I find a better word, I'll continue to use it. |
I think 'misguided' is a better term, only because delusional is so closely associated with the idea of someone with a mental deficiency who cannot really function as a viable member of society...the "Emperor" who talked to God last week, now thats delusional.
How about "Skeptically challenged" or my favorite, "Mancans" (manchurian candidates, not to be confused with man-boobs) as "Brainwashed" is also taken as an insult.
"Them/They" is always a winner though.
|
Dawkins explains his use of "delusion" in the title of The God Delusion by making it clear he did not mean all theists are "delusional" in the formal psychiatric sense, but in the more common usage. He mentions shrinks who have suggested to him the term, "relusion" for religious "delusions."
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 15:23:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
| But maybe I'm just a cold-hearted analytical atheist who doesn't understand why emotion trumps knowledge/faith. |
Why are atheists such as myself terrified of death when our rational mind tells us that death is painless nothingness. We have every reason to be at peace with the idea of our own inevitable demise, and yet many of us are absolutely terrified. Since when do emotions and our expression of emotions through crying and whatnot have to line up with everything else our head and heart is telling us?
Edited to add: Hell, for that matter, why do I jump and scream when I see a big silverfish in my house, even though I know they are harmless?
|
Very interesting subject. I, too, fear death, an emotion that hasn't exactly diminished as I passed 62 four days ago. I see death as simple oblivion, and not bad in itself. But I fear that oblivion, because I cling to life.
I just finished reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion a few days ago. Though extremely impressed by the work overall (I'll doubtless be quoting from it to an annoying degree), I was singularly disappointed in and unmoved by Dawkins' attempts (in Chapter 10, "A Much Needed Gap?") to provide "consolation" for us mortal atheists. Though some of the quotes he used were somewhat inspiring, this was the weakest part of his book, IMO.
I suspect that evolution never "invented" a consolation for death, simply because it had no value in natural selection.
My own thought is that this built-in fear of death is simply good evolutionary programming. The inevitability of death is something I will have to learn to accept and to live with. Religion or none, it certainly isn't logical to ruin one's remaining life in worry about its brevity.
And I have something the religious do not: I am fearless of Hell. I'm unconcerned as to whether I have scored enough points to enter Heaven. Nor do I worry that I may have been wrong about my beliefs, a worry that I believe gnaws at the souls of the multitude of "faithful." But as another living being, I share with them the fear of death that most of us have.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/27/2007 15:25:48 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 17:33:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Why are atheists such as myself terrified of death when our rational mind tells us that death is painless nothingness. |
Because there's not enough damn time. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 17:54:12 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | Do you ever tire of doing this shit? WTF is wrong with you? Let me quote myself, yet again, so maybe you'll actually read it and not straw-man me. |
I didn't straw man you. You said that the pope implied something that I don't think he implied at all, especially when you consider that his statement is true. Rather than implying that evolution SHOULD explain the origins of life, I think he was putting emphasis on the question of origins, and by pointing out that evolution cannot answer that question he is doing all those knuckleheads out there who argue against evolution on the basis of origins a service by telling them they are wrong. Considering the huge number of knuckleheads out there who do think evolution claims to explain the origin of life, or who think evolution should explain the origin of life, I think the pope certainly did have another reason for making his statement that has nothing to do with casting aspersions to the ToE.
| The only way he can talk bad about the ToE, and not look like more of a retard than he already does, is to imply that it should be able to answer his questions and then criticise it for not being able to answer his questions. |
I think you are reading way too much into what he is quoted as saying. I think you are making huge assumptions based on nothing more than your own personal inclinations, not what is plainly in the text.
Humbert wrote: | They are not clinically, lock-them-up "delusional." But as a layman's term, "delusional" precisely describes their state of mind. Until I find a better word, I'll continue to use it. |
Fair enough.
| So? It's them that I have my quarrel with. I don't expect them to agree with me. |
Well, I also don't agree with you that progressive religion makes faith a less admirable trait but you don't expect me to agree with you, nor do I expect you to agree with me, so I guess that's resolved too.
Yes, I am saying that they are acting irrationally.
…
This is where you go wrong, Marf. Faith is 100% irrational. No matter how limited, no matter what their personal motives, faith is always irrational. |
Again, I offer to agree to disagree on this point.
| No, it is my refusal to condescend to them that you find arrogant. |
I see what you are saying, but we clearly have different perspectives on this matter.
| As soon as you can actually show me that reason and critical thinking are inapplicable to this issue, then I'll refrain. Otherwise all I see is you asking me not to rock the boat because you |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/27/2007 17:55:29 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 18:01:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Yes, I am saying that they are acting irrationally.
…
This is where you go wrong, Marf. Faith is 100% irrational. No matter how limited, no matter what their personal motives, faith is always irrational. |
Again, I offer to agree to disagree on this point. |
I need to ask, marf, how you think faith - even progressive faith - is rational? It certainly isn't arrived at through logical reasoning from factual premises. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 18:10:54 [Permalink]
|
In further response to my discussion with Humbert, I had a thought that might help explain my position on respect and value for peoples' beliefs. The way I think about that is rather similar to how I think about other valued aspects of peoples' quality of life. For example, often divorce cases that involve a rich person and their non-working spouse are settled by giving the non-working spouse a settlement which allows them to keep "the standard of life they've grown accustomed to" or close to that. This seems fair to many if not most people because most people will acknowledge that the quality of life for an individual is largely dependent on one's habits, hobbies, and day to day lifestyle. One of the reasons I oppose the outright banning of guns in the USA is not because I own guns, but because I have many friends who own guns and put a strong - hmmmm, let's romantic, perhaps? - value on being able to own those guns. ONce people get it into their heads that something is an important part of their cultural or individual identity, taking that away feels like an assault on ourselves, and casually insulting that on moral or intellectual grounds cuts us to the core. I think this is why when someone makes casually insulting statements about atheism, I feel enraged - my atheism has become intermingled with my very identity. This is why we have special exceptions to our laws for letting Native Americans use peyote, and letting Amish live in separated, isolated communities, even thought he majority of Americans think those beliefs are silly.
We say different things and in different tones of voice, depending on the company we are in. My atheist husband and I might viciously bash religion in the comfort of our own home, but to do so in front of religious people would be wrong, in my view, because it doesn't take into account how the words and tone of voice will be taken by those individuals. When I bash religious beliefs among my atheist friends, I am often having a cathartic experience, getting a release after practicing so much mindful tolerance in public. From a more objective view, I don't actually think horrible things about people with faith. So when I speak to people of faith about beliefs, I need to put my thoughts through a filter - as we must always do when we communicate with others - so that they fully understand the meaning. Likewise, if I press most people after they say things I find insulting about atheism, I find that they really didn't mean to belittle the character of myself and other atheists, and that I often take their words more harshly than they are intending them. (I'm talking about my liberal religious friends, not self-righteous believers who really do often belief ridiculously harsh and ignorant things about atheists.)
Anyway, I hope these thoughts help clarify my position. I'm always trying to find the words to clarify all this shit that's in my mind on this topic. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 18:23:00 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | I need to ask, marf, how you think faith - even progressive faith - is rational? It certainly isn't arrived at through logical reasoning from factual premises. |
I don't think it is rational; I said that they weren't irrational. I don't think reason factors into it at all. I gather, from really trying to understand the faith of my friends who discuss this issue with me, and who are open and honestly curious, too, about my atheism, that faith is an emotionally based experience, similar to love or passion (not just sexual passion - but passion for anything, like passion for your job, or fascination with some particular subject, or some beloved hobby, etc.) I don't think people who have progressive religious beliefs contemplate the literal aspects very much. They focus a lot more on the experience of the feelings involved, and finding a sort of deeply poetic meaning through contemplation of the unknown.
I heard an interview on the radio the other day with a journalist who used to cover religion for - I think it was the NYTimes? Anyway, he talked all about his deep faith and how he wanted to portray religion in a much more human and personal way than he had seen done, and then he went on about how he lost his faith (he was Catholic) largely as a result of his investigations of the sex scandals. The interviewer asked him if he still believed in God. He paused, almost laughed, and said something like, "That's the hardest question to answer." He sort of hemmed and hawed and finally said that he was probably best characterized as an agnostic now, leaning toward atheism. What does an answer like that mean?
But the thing is, I think I know what it means, even if that knowledge isn't easy to describe in words. Belief isn't just something you calculate like a math equation. Some peoples' minds word more in that fashion, but not most people. I once had an experience when I was 19 years old (had been agnostic for years at that point) where I had what felt like a revelation, and suddenly I believed in God. It lasted about an hour, and then I thought - well that was weird and silly. Weird and silly it seemed after the fact, because I don't think I could have even explained what I meant by "God", so how could I believe in it? And it wasn't based on any fear of death or desire for a soul or afterlife or anything other weakness of character. It was just this weird, awesome feeling that took over. Now, as a atheist and materialist, I attribute it to chemicals in my brain and such. But I gotta acknowledge that I've always had the mind of a rationalist. It is just how I think, and I just can't be so arrogant as to get self righteous about my way of thinking about these great questions of the unknown and meaning of life being the only correct way. I do think my beliefs are correct, but I'm humble, not self-righteous about it. And that's exactly how progressive religious people are about their beliefs.
I really do think my worldview has more in common with a Christian Unitarian than Sam Harris.
Edited so it wouldn't all be one big fat unreadable paragraph. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/27/2007 18:28:04 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 18:53:49 [Permalink]
|
Marf wrote:| Edited so it wouldn't all be one big fat unreadable paragraph. |
I often go back and do the same thing. It's much better having a bunch of little skinny unreadable paragraphs.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 19:54:25 [Permalink]
|
There is fear in the probability of being wrong.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 20:51:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
There is fear in the probability of being wrong. |
Have you calculated that probability for us, marty? Or are you just projecting? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 20:55:11 [Permalink]
|
Mooner wrote: | It's much better having a bunch of little skinny unreadable paragraphs. |
LOL!
Hey, wait, are you makin' fun of me? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/27/2007 20:55:27 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 23:20:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Mooner wrote: | It's much better having a bunch of little skinny unreadable paragraphs. |
LOL!
Hey, wait, are you makin' fun of me?
|
Yes, I am, and of myself at the same time.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 01:55:56 [Permalink]
|
H.H. said:
And this is exactly why faith should never be promoted, because it can be used to justify anything. If faith can be invoked as a reason to end slavery, so can it be invoked to as a reason to continue slavery. And once you accept faith as a valid reason for doing good, then you've left yourself zero room to criticize it when it is used as a reason for doing evil. As soon as you allow that faith isn't to be subjected to critical scrutiny, that the rationalist position is "inapplicable," then you are forced by your own logic to accept whatever stems from faith. It's a devil's bargain. And the next time faith grows out of hand, the next time it turns people in violent lunatics who think they know god's mind, apologists like yourself will be frantically trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle and pretending that faith isn't at the root of the problem.
|
DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNAH!
Seriously, I couldn't agree more. Well said.
Marf said:
Yes, you did. You are just trying to provoke me. Did you miss your dose of abuse recently and just comming back for another fix?
| You said that the pope implied something that I don't think he implied at all, especially when you consider that his statement is true. |
His statement is only true if you ignore the context! ToE has NEVER claimed to explain the origin of life of the cosmos. His mentioning it in that regard at all is dishonest of him! Sure, his words are technically and literally true, but when the context of his remarks is considered it is obvious that he only mentions that the ToE doesn't explain everything so that he can criticise the ToE. The implication is clear, obvious like a brick to the head. ToE can't answer where everything came from, therefore it is flawed and lacks the explanatory power ascribed to it by science. What bullshit.
| I think he was putting emphasis on the question of origins, and by pointing out that evolution cannot answer that question he is doing all those knuckleheads out there who argue against evolution on the basis of origins a service by telling them they are wrong. |
Anyone have a transcript of the whole thing? I don't get that at all from what I have been able to find of this in the news. But going from what I know of this pope, I think you are wrong (assuming you aren't just being contrary for the hell of it).
I think you are reading way too much into what he is quoted as saying. I think you are making huge assumptions based on nothing more than your own personal inclinations, not what is plainly in the text.
|
There is no rational reason to mention that the ToE doesn't explain the origin of the universe unless you are trying to set it up for criticism.
That is the reason I have the opinion I do of his remarks. An intelligent person who wanted to do what you are claiming he is doing wouldn't need t |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Pope & Evolution
